Fujifilm XQ1 First Impressions Review

The 'enthusiast compact' sector has rather exploded in recent years, with every major manufacturer now offering models which offer photographer-friendly manual controls and Raw format recording. In general these cameras fall into two distinct types - relatively large, chunky cameras with fast lenses and flash hot shoes, and smaller, externally-simpler 'shirt pocket' cameras. This latter category was for a while dominated by Canon's S-series like the latest Powershot S120, but was last year completely shaken up by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 with its much larger, high resolution 1"-type 20MP sensor.

Fujifilm also entered this market last year, with the XF1 - a beautifully-designed, but distinctly quirky camera with a manual zoom ring and lens retraction mechanism. We loved its combination of striking good looks and photographer-friendly controls, but it appears to have struggled to make much of a market impact in the face of all the buzz that surrounded the RX100. So this year Fujifilm is trying again, but with the much-more-conventional XQ1.

The XQ1 is, in terms of design, determinedly mainstream, and in many ways it's as unlike the XF1 as chalk and cheese. It's dressed in a sober single-color body shell, either black or silver, and uses a now-common round-lens control ring, which rotates freely without click-stops like the RX100's. The XF1's mechanical zoom ring is replaced by an utterly conventional lever around the shutter release. Overall, the XQ1 looks just like its main competitors.

The XQ1 is far from all-new though - dig into the specs and you'll find it has exactly the same 25-100mm equivalent lens as the XF1. This offers a headline-grabbing F1.8 maximum aperture at the wide end, but a less-impressive F4.9 at telephoto. It uses the same 2/3" type X-Trans CMOS II sensor as the Fujifilm X20, which employs a novel color filter array and no optical low-pass filter in an attempt to deliver more detail than its 12MP pixel count might at first suggest. The sensor also incorporates phase-detection pixels for fast autofocus - and this means that the XQ1 is startlingly quick.

On the back the XQ1 sports a large, high resolution 920k dot 3" LCD, and fills the remaining space with buttons to give direct access to commonly-used functions. Crucially, it retains one of our favorite features of the XF1, the 'E-Fn' button that accesses a further of range of functions (which the user can choose to suit their needs). We'll cover this later, but suffice to say it makes the XQ1 one of the most photographer-friendly small cameras around.

It comes in silver or black

The XQ1 will come in a choice of colors - a rather white-ish silver, or a purposeful-looking matte black. One point of note is that the black finish is distinctly textured, making this distinctly small camera less slippery in your hand than most of its peers. The silver version, in contrast, is noticeably smoother. The XQ1 will go on sale in November 2013, at a suggested retail price of $499 / £349.99.

Sensor sizes compared

The diagram below compares the size of the XQ1's 2/3" sensor to those in its nearest competitors - in general larger sensors potentially offer better image quality. The XF1's sensor is half the size of that found in the (rather more expensive) Sony RX100 (II), but it's about half as large again as the Canon S120's.

The XQ1's 2/3" sensor is half the area of the Sony RX100 II's 1" sensor, but about 50% larger than the Canon S120's 1/1.7" sensor.

Variation of maximum aperture with focal length

The XQ1's headline maximum aperture of F1.8 only applies at wide-angle, and like the Canon S120 and Sony RX100, the lens is much slower at the telephoto end. The table below shows the maximum aperture at each of the focal lengths on the on-screen virtual 'zoom ring' (as 35mm equivalents):

Equiv Focal Length

25mm

35mm

50mm

60mm

80mm

100mm

Max aperture

F1.8

F3.6

F4.2

F4.7

F4.9

F4.9

One point worthy of note here is how rapidly the maximum aperture diminishes as you zoom in; it's dropped by fully two stops at 35mm (equivalent). Other similar cameras tend to keep their maximum apertures faster in this intermediate range.

Enthusiast compacts: lenses, sensors and background blur

One real complication when comparing cameras with different sensor sizes is due to the interplay between sensor size and maximum aperture. A camera with a large sensor, but relatively small aperture lens may not necessarily outperform a camera with a smaller sensor but larger aperture lens, particularly with regard to low light performance and the ability to blur backgrounds - something often claimed in manufacturers' marketing materials.

One way of addressing this is to compare 'equivalent' apertures. In much the same way as equivalent focal lengths can be used to directly compare angle of view, equivalent apertures can be used to compare the lens's ability to blur backgrounds in any given shooting situation (a larger aperture will blur backgrounds more, at any given focal length). They can also be used as an indicator of how cameras are likely to compare in terms of low-light image quality, although plenty of other factors complicate this too (including lens quality, image stabilization effectiveness, and image processing, etc). In the graph below, the lower the line, the better the camera is likely to be for low-light image quality and blurring backgrounds, at any given equivalent focal length.

The XQ1 is shown by the darker of the two green lines on this graph. In this comparison it's ahead of the Canon S120 (orange), although not by all that much, but it's distinctly behind the Sony RX100 (dark blue). But its relatively small maximum aperture means that overall it also lags behind compact cameras with lenses which are consistently fast through the range, such the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7. In essence this is a consequence of its truly pocketable design.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X, Y, and Z and ideally A, B, and C.

This article is Copyright 1998 - 2015 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

I mean, it says: "In short, it ticks all the right boxes." right after we find out it has no viewfinder OR tilting screen, will only take a little over 200 shots on a charge, looks plain like a canon (and no handgrip), removes some of the nice controls that set Fuji apart (because a few didn't like them), and is made in China (probably the reason why it has cheaper energy-hungry circuits)!

I wanted to like this thing... small size, larger sensor than most, reasonable lens and zoom... but I'm starting to agree with some who say this was just thrown together in haste.

yes it is! the majority of nikon (d3200, d5300, d7100) and canon dslrs, many fuji (x100s, xpro1, xe1, xm1, xe2), are all apsc. they are by far the largest volume in good* cameras. FF sales are much less in terms of unit sales, although they are better. *obviously $100 small sensor cameras sell in higher volumes, but they don't qualify as good in comparison. and looking at mirrorless, canon is headed towards apsc, sony is already on apsc, nikon may drop the 1" and go apsc as well, samsung is on apsc, while panoly are mft. sony is also going FF in mirrorless, but that is to be expected, because arguably, eventually, they'll all be without a mirrorbox eventually.and BTW, there are mirrorless IL cameras that are the same size as this "compact" Fuji x20. (canon eom, samsung nx300, with pancake lenses)

What is all this nonsense with comparing this camera with rx100 based on sensor?Like sensor does miracles and shoots pictures without other parts of the system being involved and at the same time, our subjects are waiting for us...

How do you take pictures of an indoor (kids) party ?You use rx100? How is a good sensor going to overcome 5 seconds of flash recycle time vs 1.3 on this Fuji?

How can you take a picture if it happens to be the sun behind your subject. Nd filter on rx100? Flash with sync speed of 1/200? It likely is going to be fuji with 1/1000+ shutter speed with flash on.

Zoom speed on rx100 if you need to quickly compose your pictures?

I need fast shutter for indoor/outdoor events. Many do. Rx100 is far from that.

you seem to forget the benefits of larger sensors: many instances you'll be able to forego a flash with a larger sensor, or use a lower power on your flash, prolonging battery autonomy. personally I prefer to shoot without a flash whenever I can. 5 secs is long though, you are right. if you do like the rx100, perhaps an external flash with it's own battery may be the solution... but I have a feeling you don't like that camera at all.

The question is if the click-less ring will remain mechanically reliable. It could be possible the ring will rotates to easy during the years. In my opinion a click-ring would be better since the “click” itself means the ring is pressed securely in that position.

I briefly owned XF1 and while I didn't mind that much the quirky lens mechanism, the images from it were abysmal. Indoor was almost unusable despite its 1.8f lens. I see this as a continuation of that trend, except it is 2x more expensive. I think for the $500 you can go much better than this... it is total nonsense to start dressing essentially basic PS cameras with a price sticker of much more powerful one.It is like deception by price - it is expensive so it must be better.

I agree. I just checked out the samples on the Fujifilm site. Photos have fallen apart utterly at ISO 1600, to the point of easily being visible even when not zooming in or anything. ISO 800 is probably borderline usable, ISO 400 looked good.

Which makes me wonder how this camera pushes anything forward at all? The X Trans sensor is clearly pressured to hard here to make any special difference.

I know the photo you are talking about, the accordion player, and I disagree. At normal viewing size, it looks great. Because it's a JPEG though, zooming in reveals NR artifacts. But similar JPEG NR artifacts are present on ALL small sensor compact INCLUDING the RX100 and the RX10. Pixel peepers should shoot RAW.

IMHO, the XQ1 samples look quite good for JPEGs, and it's a camera I'm interested in.

Clearly for many it would be a second camera, but part of what I enjoy about compacts is they force you to work to make interesting images, instead of relying on great IQ of large sensor cameras to make boring images passable. Compacts like the GRD III and X10 are some of my favorite cameras to shoot with out on the street, and the latter was quite good up to ISO 1600, even pushed a bit higher.

The key is understanding that such a small sensor simply won't equal APS-C, but images can often be quite beautiful.

Fuji has a legacy investment in the 2/3" sensor, and although not nearly as large as the 1", and small compared to APSc, don't you think that the ones offering small 1/1.6 1/1.7 should be the focus of such criticism? They've done nothing to bring larger sensors to their obsolete-in-advance compacts. (heck, even Nikon who have the 1 system won't offer a compact with 1"!)

You're right about degrees (180 deg for fisheye, 90 deg for 20mm equiv, etc.) but you know, sometimes certain standards just stick around even though it makes no sense. The term ISO for film doesn't really make sense for digital, and most users don't understand what ISO means or what it stands for, but hey, it's become the standard way to describe "digital grain"...look at the way sensor size is described. It's a mess. 1/1.7"? Most don't even know the history of APS and that it was a failed film format in the 90's. How about just diagonal distance in mm? So instead of full-frame, we say 35mm, which is the diagonal distance of the sensor. Ha ha...anyway, things change so quick now that it's hard to stick to a standard that makes sense...but good point!

actually the sensor "size" is the diameter of the image circle made by the projection through the lens onto the film and now the sensor - the actual sensor diagonal is smaller. iso is international standards organisation, and they just picked up the numbers from asa. I had a German APS film camera and it took amazing pictures but not as good as 35mm, true. it wasn't as popular because it came out just before digital cameras started becoming popular just as it gained momentum in the marketplace.

true, we should use degrees! but then again, if we had degrees, we wouldn't be able to directly calculate the size of an opening based on f-stop. (ie: a 30mm lens (45mm equivalent) on APSc at f2.0 will give you an opening 15mm in diameter - measure it yourself, you'll see). from there, you can calculate the surface area and figure out exposure, etc. by giving the lens in mm relative to 135mm just gives us a common denominator for view equivalency.

For guys that wanted an X10 or 20 that would fit in a shirt pocket, and the XF-1 was just a bit too wierd control-wise (manual zoom?) and too EXR, this is just the ticket, even though it obviously is not mining quite the retro vibe of the rest of the X range.

In the equivalent aperture graph, there is something wrong with the focal length scale and/or the color traces of several cameras. For example, the LX7 should extend further up to 90 mm, the XQ1 and the RX100 up to 100 mm, and so on.

Canon has yet to followup on their larger sensor G1X. Theirsmall camera S series line has the same small sensor. They are starting to fall behind the competition. This little Fuji looks pretty good. If someone can afford it the Sony RX100 (1 or 2) would be even better. Sensor size matters. All things being equal I want a small camera with a bigger sensor. There is no way I would buy an S120 now.

The Fuji appears to be just ahead of the S120 in low light capability - probably not enough difference to justify a switch, depending in other factors. That slow aperture on zoom is really painful. The Panasonic LX-7 is a much better choice.

The Fuji appears to be just ahead of the S120 in low light capability - probably not enough difference to justify a switch, depending in other factors. That slow aperture on zoom is really painful. The Panasonic LX-7 is a much better choice.

Not so long ago, Fuji made the gorgeous Natura Black F1.9 film compact. It was a pocketable P&S with a 24mm f1.9 lens, and was aimed at people who wanted an everyday snapshot camera to document life in all lighting conditions. It was a Japan-only model, but was available throughout Asia as a grey import. I've used mine a lot, and I love the unique images it creates. Would it kill Fuji to make an aps-c digital version, if not 35mm full frame?

I was talking to this homeless wino guy who hangs around downtown at the bus terminal the other night, and he says that while Fujifilm never advertised the fact, the internal workings of the XF1 are actually shielded against tachyon particle contamination from solar nanobite rays, and that there have been secret government studies that have shown repeatedly that the red XF1 in particular would be the one that would look best in your hands during a Judgment Day-Armageddon intergalactic warfare doomsday type of situation. But, see, with the XQ1, they had to trade off the nanobite particle shielding for the newer sensor, you know, to keep the MSRP in line. Then there was this whole big international controversy scandal thing where they had to try and keep that NSA Eric Snowden guy from talking about it publicly in the chat rooms of those quirky new Affordable Health Care Act web sites. Or something.

Looks like a modern reincarnation of my old Fuji F11. It had a 6MP 1/1.6'' (about the same as 2/3) sensor and a similar lens (no OS though). And it was far above the competition in terms of noise level.

I think it's a nice camera, but it will all come down to image quality... if the image quality is top notch a la almost RX100, they would still have to price this more in the $400 range to position themselves in relation to the RX100.

RX100 made a huge splash, and I think in some ways opened up the "casual consumer's" mind to the issue sensor size in compacts.

Falling behind in terms of both MP and in terms of sensor size, this camera basically has to be SUPERIOR sensor quality to RX100 to really make any kind of big splash in this sector I think.

I might consider buying this camera, but probably at a lower price than $499. With peaking and the fast autofocus, the actual performance of this camera might be really great, and hopefully if it doesn't make a huge splash, the price will be much lower.

There are samples up on Fujifilm.com. The RX100 seems to clearly have a better high ISO performance as well as lens sharpness, while this camera's lens isn't very fast either. I would not recommend this camera. The X Trans sensor doesn't seem to help at all. It's like buying a year old camera for prosumer compact pricing. This one should cost $50-$100 less IMHO.

This looks like a very nice alternative to the Canon S-Series. I liked the S-series, but after the problems i.e the 'Lens Error' , it's hard for me to trust another one whether it's the S100, 110 or 120. I think I am going to check out the Fuji XF-1 or XQ1. The sensor is also much bigger than the one in the Canon. I can pick up this camera today in my area for $400, but I will wait for a full-review and the price to go down a little before I buy.

Meh. Just that, meh.Hardware wise, it may certainly be a good performer (for its class). But design wise, it really pales in comparison to the XF1.For the same price, I'd take an RX100 (I) over it any day.

The XF1/XQ1 lens is wonderful in its own right, It is 1-1/2 stops slower at the 100 mm end, but gives better image quality than the X10-X20 lens at that focal length; it is 1/3 stop faster than the X10-X20 lens at the 28 mm end, but the X10-X20 lens gives better image quality at wide angle. The XF1/XQ1 lens has less flare and higher light transmittance than the X10-X20 lens. Call it a stand-off.

The XQ1 is debuting at a MUCH higher price than the XF1, but the XF1 is clearly the better camera. That is the oddity with this introduction.

Thanks very much for the feedback. I guess if at f 4.9 the X 20 lens equals IQ of the XQ1, then both are more or less the same, using the same sensor, no big differences.

So this camera appears as a LX7 and so on competitor. That should be the market.

Price seems high right now.

I am seriously considering an X 20 JUST because it has a viewfinder, and a competent one as the reviews tell. Can´t decide because the IQ - price relation is not the best, but it seems to be the best camera of it class with a finder.

Bear in mind that the sensor features both phase and contrast detect and Fuji's new Lens Modulation Optimizer technology which wasn't mentioned in this preview but was just unveiled in the new XE-2 model. The X20 is a fine camera but it is NOT shirt-pocketable and the XQ1 has a slightly more advanced sensor.

Whether that translates to better overall versus the sony rx100 is a matter of personal preference. I like the video capability in the RX better than anything fuji has issued to date, but I don't use my XE1 for video anyway.

The "new" in "...Fuji's new Lens Modulation Technology ..." appears to be the freshly minted phrase for a technology that already existed in the XF1. The XF1's lens is only minimally corrected optically, but very highly corrected in firmware, as Tom Niemann, author of the excellent PTLens lens correction software program, has shown.

So although the technology was just unveiled for the X-E2 for interchangeable lens models of the X-series, it was already in place (without a name) on the fixed-lens XF1. What is new on the XQ1 is the NAME of the technology.

@prime. You're talking about two different things here. Pretty well every compact camera on the market now uses software distortion correction. Most cameras automatically correct for lateral chromatic aberration too - this has been going on for years (it was first really noticed in the Panasonic LX3). Lens Modulation Optimiser is a distinctly different concept - it's about understanding the lens's other aberrations that cause 'softness' and specifically correcting for them using selective sharpening. Most notably, in principle it should give better results at small apertures.

Mr. Westlake, I am happy to see you actively participating in this discussion. A year ago, Richard Butler, whose body of work has been exemplary, produced what DPReview has labeled a "Review" of the XF1, as part of a round-up of disparate cameras, most of which were the subject of separate in-depth reviews on DPReview. The cursory treatment given to the XF1 might be described as a "hatchet job," but I am sure it was not intentional; but one cannot conduct a serious test of a camera in 15 minutes outside on a drizzly November day in Seattle. One hopes that you will include REAL tests of the XF1 as a baseline for your full test of the XQ1.

In fact, you will find that Fujifilm introduced major changes in software lens correction between the X10 and the XF1, which came to share the same sensor. You will find that the changes made BEFORE the XF1 was introduced are MUCH more significant than the tweaks for the XQ1, and there is no "distinct different concept" between the XF1 and XQ1.

The XQ1 is the to the XF1 what, seven years ago, the Fujifilm F20 was to the Fujifilm F30. When it was introduced, the F30 was a category leader, and pioneer. A few months later, Fujifilm introduced the F20, which was F30 Lite, with reduced functionality, at a lower price point.

X-Trans sensor advantages kick in at larger sensor sizes. The X-Trans sensor in 2/3" size is inferior to a 2/3" EXR sensor; see the DXO dynamic range comparator (X10 vs. X20) at DR400.

Whereas the XF1 zoom can be adjusted to any focal length between 25 mm and 100 mm, the XQ1 has a stepped increment zoom control, so the XQ1 zoom lens can be set to only a limited number of focal lengths. And the tiny lever adjustment of the XQ1 will be twitchy, and overshoot intermediate focal lengths.

The battery of the older XF1 has a greater capacity than the battery of the newer XQ1.

The XQ1 is -- thus -- an XF1 Lite -- but this time at a higher price than the original model.

Have to say, would rather they'd just done a XF2 ie the XF1 with the X-Trans processor and minor tweeks, in the style of moving from the X10 to the X20. I was disappointed they didn't do that at the time the X20 came out.

It looks like it'll be a lovely camera, just not as pretty as the XF1. And if thinking that's a shame makes me shallow, then mea culpa.

A few years ago I kept buying old film compact cameras because pretty much no digicam was worth it. I'm starting to like where the market is going in digicams. This one looks like something I might like.

They've given the XF1 a cosmetic facelift, to make it's looks closer to those of the cheap and boring Canon's s110.

Heck, in the graphic, they've even bridged the gap between the s110 and the next worse camera, so the s110 doesn't look as bad as it did before, and the previous second-worse camera now looks better.

They've kept most things the same from the XF1 - even the slow zoomed lens. They may have moved a few buttons around.

So basically, it's the same thing, but with marketing's "new and improved" stamp on it.

What do you call this thing, when someone does the same thing over and over again, but expects different results?

Their efforts (and money) would have been better spent shrinking the X20, so it's actually smaller than a mirrorless ILC (it's the size of an NX300 for God's sake!) and can have a hope of competing with the RX100 despite the smaller sensor.

this one looks more functional than the XF1. I'd rather have an ugly camera that has good controls and takes good pictures, rather than have a pretty camera... If you want FORM over FUNCTION, go to Sony.

I would rather have a camera that looks beautiful and performs average rather than an ugly camera that performs exceptionally. Luckily, the XF-1 is all of the former and most of the latter. The DR is superb as well.

this isn't exactly a "big" sensor! better than 1/2 and 1/1.17, but by far not big. Even the small 1" sensors are twice the size of this one. But you will get nice results with this sensor size in adequate lighting.

"True, as nice as the XQ1 is, it is hard to consider any compact other than the RX100, if one is at all serious about photography."

If one is willing to pay for quality, what about the Nikon Coolpix A at only around 1.5 times the price of an RX100M? Otherwise, I second marike6 - from my experience the LX7 is great in decent light and in addition, S100 is amazing in low light up to ISO 160 and pretty decent up to ISO 400 - 800 with an image stabilizer that has given me blur-free shots at shutter speeds as low as 1/3 of a second in very low light!

The Nikon Coolpix A (and Ricoh BR) are different beasts all together, lacking any zoom. As such they aren't really as valid of a comparison to enthusiast compact zooms that we are discussing.Yes, various cameras have certain advantages but we are discussing the XQ1. To me it seems a bit "meh" for a newly released camera.

This camera ticks many good boxes.The zoom range 25-100 is pretty much all you need in a compact.But, If I was Fuji I'd have added an optical viewfinder though, no matter how small, to differentiated it against the S120 and RX100 and extend battery life.I had an old Fuji F700 with optical viewfinder, it was small, but great to have that option and didn't take much space.

Other possibility is to replace the zoom lens with a prime 35mm F1.8, to make it a really small and light package while increasing quality even further.I don't think there is much competition in that area of 2/3" sensor with prime lens.

They can maximize the sensor but it will most probably still be behind the RX100I/II in both low light and resolution and everything else except price. Somebody said they wouldn't want to pay such money for a compact camera. As if "compact" is some sort of value limiter. When it's the other way around, the camera's real value for the user is greatly enhanced when it's always in your pocket.

The 2/3 sensor in a compact makes a lot of sense to me. That’s a pretty appealing little camera. But with the RX100ii coming with hotshoe, tilting screen and more capable video, it might be a tough sell. And I much prefer the XF’s style. But to me, this really exposes the X20. That camera should have gotten a bigger sensor in this round. Gorgeous and ergonomic as it is, the compact sensor in that relatively large X20 form factor no longer feels competitive. The Xtrans makes up some quality distance, but at some point, sensor size and IQ start to align. I’m eager to see a FF Fuji.

Due to its optics the X20 has notably better low light performance and depth of field control, as shown in the equivalent aperture diagram (even better than RX100 in the tele range). It also offers more external controls, such as a dedicated exposure compensation wheel, and its manual zoom is awesome. Last but not least it has an optical viewfinder – the best one in the current zoom compact camera market, actually, with an unique information overlay.

The XQ1 on the other hand is much smaller.

These are really two very different cameras. If the XQ1 can cannibalize any X20 sales, then it’s from customers who considered the X20 although it wasn’t the right camera for them anyway. XQ1 is much more similar to Sony’s RX100(ii) in my opinion.

Good point mama. I was thinking of the RX100ii, but this really stacks up directly against the RX100 first generation -- no hot shoe or tilting screen. At comparable prices, it looks like the Sony has the edge on feature set (video in particular), but I'm betting that the Fuji will handle better and have better UI than the Sony. At this price, I'd have to consider some other cameras that are less directly comparable, but fit the "small enthusiast" category: the GM1 with 4/3 should be only a tad larger at the lens, but way more versatile and better IQ. Or the Ricoh GR, with APS-C and a fixed 28mm equivalent 2.8. Less versatile focal range, but killer feature set and IQ, and an ideal street photography companion. Of course, Ming Thein's new compact camera masterclass demonstrates pretty clearly that a good eye matters so much more than sensor size! :) For me, the new priority is handling

That photo conclusively demonstrates that the A7r is way too sharp and detailed to use for portraits; 99.9 percent of people cannot stand up to that level of resolution. I'm sure that the woman in real life is very attractive, but whoever put that photo up should be shot. It's a nightmare of pores, unplucked hairs, veins, mascara flakes, splotches, and lines—doesn't anyone take the dignity of the subject into account before they post these things?

I love it. What I wanted was an in-your-pocket camera with good image quality for all sorts of shooting conditions. The selling points of the XF-1 was its gorgeous retro looks, the manual zoom, the manual pop-up flash, size and weight. After ten years of carrying around bulky and/or heavy digital gear I am just totally fed up of doing that.

Looking at the XF-1's competitors, the picture quality is round about similar-ish. So I was attracted by a USP. Using the XF-1 for a while now I have to say the AF speed, dynamic range, colour, exposure, resolution and sharpness are superb for such a small camera.

I just love the manual zoom with the lens marked in 35mm equivalent focal lengths. It's faster than a zoom lever type, and you have much better control over your framing. OK, so you have to use two hands, but this has the added benefit of a more stable shooting platform added to the already excellent IS. I have hand held to 1/5th of a second with very sharp results.